FedericRoma83
Rookie
Three, on three different surfaces.How many pro majors did he win?
Four if we include Australian Pro 1957 (and I do).
Three, on three different surfaces.How many pro majors did he win?
Three, on three different surfaces.
Four if we include Australian Pro 1957 (and I do).
Segura was the second or third best player of the 1950s.
Dan, you really are the old Dan. Will you ever stop to belittle Rosewall and his opponents? Please stop to rank Rosewall in the top ten! It's just irony to include him who did not have any strong opponent in his career...
You belittle even your two darlings when writing that Hoad and Gonzalez were past peak in that period. Gonzalez was at least a Co.-No. 1 in 1960 and 1961 and Hoad was still very strong in 1960 and even later. All that nonsense in order to belittle Rosewall...
All the players you mentioned were still damned strong in the early 1960s. For instance Segura, who was 41 in 1962, was at the Laver level that year.
Gimeno did reach the heights of greatness as No.3 in several years.
You also are wrong regarding Anderson. He did play much every year in that period. And he did play very well.
I would say it's wasted time to discuss with such an unserious poster. I'm aware that some posters now will again say I'm intolerant but I would say that even my intolerance is reasonable and not as terrible as your non-seriousness!
We are talking 1962.
Actually, Segura put up a great fight against Rosewall at Wembley that year.
But he was past peak by this time.
Segura at Laver´s level? OMG¡¡¡
Remember Kiki that Segura was a pro and Laver wasn't nearly the player he would be in 1962. Segura is one of the finest players ever lived. He had a two handed quite similar looking to Jimmy Connors' backhand but those who have seen both consider Segura's forehand clearly better, some think by a wide margin. Many have called it the best single stroke in tennis history. Laver called it the finest forehand he ever faced. This is something to imagine since Laver only faced the Segura forehand when Segura was in his forties and Laver faced many awesome forehands.
As you have written yourself, the 1950's, in the pros was arguably the highest level of tennis play ever and Segura won most of his tournaments in that era, defeating players like Gonzalez in the US Pro final for example. Segura was a super mover with a fantastic volley, especially the forehand volley. He had a very solid backhand with great control. He was so quick he could run around his backhand to hit his super forehand an excellent percentage of the time.
So with Segura you had a guy with a good serve, super volley, very very mobility with perhaps the greatest forehand of all time. That's a lot going for you. If you asked me if Segura at his best was better than Emerson, I would say yes.
I would say WAY better, without any kind of doubt. Emerson never faced peak-Kramer, peak-Sedgman, peak-Gonzales, peak-Rosewall, and peak-Hoad, while Segura did, and he caught 3-4 Majors title despite this enormous competition.So with Segura you had a guy with a good serve, super volley, very very mobility with perhaps the greatest forehand of all time. That's a lot going for you. If you asked me if Segura at his best was better than Emerson, I would say yes.
I would say WAY better, without any kind of doubt. Emerson never faced peak-Kramer, peak-Sedgman, peak-Gonzales, peak-Rosewall, and peak-Hoad, while Segura did, and he caught 3-4 Majors title despite this enormous competition.
Which titles? Were they really majors?
In 1951 at Forest Hills, Kramer dropped out with back ache, Gonzales was rusty from lack of play.
Segura had good wins at Slazenger 1953 against Sedgman, and 1957 at Melbourne against Gonzales and Sedgman, LA Masters in 1958 against the field.
At Wembley he was a perennial bridesmaid.
Dan, They were really majors. Your own counting does not mean too much...
I agree. Dan Lobb is funny, he seems to live in another world, with another tennis history, which he totally invented.
I agree. Dan Lobb is funny, he seems to live in another world, with another tennis history, which he totally invented.
Dan, Segura deserves a fourth place for 1962 even if you don't believe it.
I do not see Segura at 4 for 1962.
He was whipped in straight sets by Bucholz in the Cleveland final.
Probably have
1) Rosewall
2) Hoad
3) Laver
4) Emerson
5) Gimeno
6) Cooper (who won a tournament that year)
7) Trabert (who won a tournament that year)
8) Segura
As I say, Segura looked good at Wembley.
Inventing Dan, Your list is a joke. Emerson No.4? I can't believe it.
Segura won several claycourt tournaments and had in SFs match point against Rosewall at Wembley. That's more than "looked good".
There is a lot of doubles standarts.Segura, while an excellent player, never belonged to the class of the kramers,Hoads,Gonzales and Traberts.
OTOH, Emerson won a lot of titles and matches against all time greats.He deserves respect.I am sure Gimeno´d change gladly his tennis record for Roy´s.
There is a lot of doubles standarts.Segura, while an excellent player, never belonged to the class of the kramers,Hoads,Gonzales and Traberts.
OTOH, Emerson won a lot of titles and matches against all time greats.He deserves respect.I am sure Gimeno´d change gladly his tennis record for Roy´s.
kiki, you are right that Segura never belonged to the class of Trabert. He just was a class higher! Segoo reached No.2 in several years while Trabert only jumped to the No.4 spot...
Emerson might have won more titles than Gimeno but Gimeno was just the better player as he reached the No.3 position, a place never realized by Emmo.
Don't trust Dan Lobb!
kiki, you are right that Segura never belonged to the class of Trabert. He just was a class higher! Segoo reached No.2 in several years while Trabert only jumped to the No.4 spot...
Emerson might have won more titles than Gimeno but Gimeno was just the better player as he reached the No.3 position, a place never realized by Emmo.
Don't trust Dan Lobb!
Never seen Segura ( never seen Trabert but he is such a likeable guy, you know)...in any case, I have seen live both Emerson and Gimeno.I think it is definitely even.Emerson was steadier, much fitter and had a true champion spirit which Gimeno, while a very accomplished player, never really had.OTOH, Gimeno´s Fh was better than any of Emerson´s shots ( although Emmo had a solid BH, Gimeno´s BH is, IMO, underrated when compared to his big and long FH).I think it is very close and both could win.Gimeno, on the other hand, was very smart, but lacked Roy´s competitive heart.
I agree partly.
Can we really say that Gimeno did not have a competitive heart because he did not win a pro major? (I think you insinuate this). He lost to Laver and Rosewall (but beat Rosewall at four majors), while Emerson beat hackers like Stolle and Drysdale...
kiki, you are right that Segura never belonged to the class of Trabert. He just was a class higher! Segoo reached No.2 in several years while Trabert only jumped to the No.4 spot...
Emerson might have won more titles than Gimeno but Gimeno was just the better player as he reached the No.3 position, a place never realized by Emmo.
Don't trust Dan Lobb!
I agree partly.
Can we really say that Gimeno did not have a competitive heart because he did not win a pro major? (I think you insinuate this). He lost to Laver and Rosewall (but beat Rosewall at four majors), while Emerson beat hackers like Stolle and Drysdale...
Stolle a hacker??
Gimeno´s only major came against a mediocre player named Proisy.I like Gimeno but you overrated him a lot ( as you do with no major winner segura)...just as much as you belittle Newcombe and Stolle.We certainly do not share the same concepts.
kiki, Stolle called himself "The Old Hacker".
Yes, we don't have the same concept. I just wonder what your concept is.
I don't overrate Gimeno.
I don't overrate Segura.
I don't belittle Newcombe.
I don't belittle Stolle.
You underrate Rosewall :"10 big titles" even though you exactly know that Rosewall is by far the most successful with 25 big titles against 2 of Stolle,f.i.,
against 19 of your darling etc...
Your "expertise" is a shame!
Really?
Gimeno won how many majors? Less than one? Oh, the victory over Proissy.
Segura at least had good years in the early fifties, but in the tough years of the late fifties, he ranked about 6 or 7.
Newcombe won the biggest titles in the 1970 to 1975 era, based on competition.
He beat Connors in two majors (Rosewall also played Connors in two majors!), Smith in three (including the Davis Cup, certainly a major event), Kodes in one major final, Rosewall in three majors (1970 Wimbledon, 1971 Wimbledon (the worst shellacking of Rosewall's career), 1973 Forest Hills), Emerson (1970 Wimbledon marathon, 11-9 in the fifth).
When Newk was on his game, the best player of the early seventies.
Dan, you are as great as kiki! You will forgive me that I don't answer to all your nonsense statements...
kiki, Stolle called himself "The Old Hacker".
I don't overrate Gimeno.
I don't belittle Stolle.
I agree, Stolle was not that great, he never faced the Pros until 1968. His two amateur Slam victories are not such a feat.
On the contrary Gimeno was able to constantly beat Laver and Rosewall on clay in the mid 60s: this is something to take in great consideration. He has also beaten Rosewall indoor at some Pro Majors.
The 1972 FO was a good title: the field was partially depleted, but still with strong players. He has beaten Stan Smith in the quarterfinals.
Old man? He was 3 years older than Gimeno, not 8.How about Gimeno's amateur slam victories, when he was 23 years old?
Oh, excuse me. Wrong question.
Gimeno could win minor tournaments in the pros, but so could Stolle.
Why did Gimeno go down at Wembley in 1963 and 1966 to an over-the-hill, injured old man, Hoad? No excuse.
Ahahah, ha was 34 and he has beaten Smith, one of the top-2 players of 1972, please stop trolling around.In 1972, the only tough match Gimeno got was from Metreveli, a decent but not great player.
Disappointing.
I agree, Stolle was not that great, he never faced the Pros until 1968. His two amateur Slam victories are not such a feat.
On the contrary Gimeno was able to constantly beat Laver and Rosewall on clay in the mid 60s: this is something to take in great consideration. He has also beaten Rosewall indoor at some Pro Majors.
The 1972 FO was a good title: the field was partially depleted, but still with strong players. He has beaten Stan Smith in the quarterfinals.
How about Gimeno's amateur slam victories, when he was 23 years old?
Oh, excuse me. Wrong question.
Gimeno could win minor tournaments in the pros, but so could Stolle.
Why did Gimeno go down at Wembley in 1963 and 1966 to an over-the-hill, injured old man, Hoad? No excuse.
In 1972, the only tough match Gimeno got was from Metreveli, a decent but not great player.
Disappointing.
I think that Gimeno could have accomplished more.
Dan, it's good that you realized you asked a wrong question.
Yes, I didn't want to embarrass the supporters of Gimeno any further.
When he came on the pro tour in 1961, Gimeno was touted as "the next Gonzales, he even looks like him".
Didn't quite work out that way.
Dan, Gimeno turned pro in 1960.
Not many players can cope with Gonzalez, even not your favourite player.[/QUOTE
Yes, I see that Hoad beat Gimeno in November 1960 at the first Japanese Pro before beating Rosewall in the final, all on clay.
If you can convince another player that you are the better player, that is one good way of coping with him.
And winning a championship tour.
Dan, Gimeno turned pro in 1960.
Not many players can cope with Gonzalez, even not your favourite player.[/QUOTE
Yes, I see that Hoad beat Gimeno in November 1960 at the first Japanese Pro before beating Rosewall in the final, all on clay.
If you can convince another player that you are the better player, that is one good way of coping with him.
And winning a championship tour.
Dan, Gimeno finished second in the 1960 European GP.
That says a lot about Stolle and his real level.I'm impressed by the Rosewall/Stolle balance: 23 : 2 matches! (a few pro matches of 1967 could be missing).
That says a lot about Stolle.
Dan, Gimeno finished second in the 1960 European GP.[/QUOTE
Yes, behind Ashley Cooper, and just ahead of Mal Anderson.
It would have meant more if he had taken a good run at Roland Garros that year.
Dan, Gimeno finished second in the 1960 European GP.[/QUOTE
Yes, behind Ashley Cooper, and just ahead of Mal Anderson.
It would have meant more if he had taken a good run at Roland Garros that year.
Dan, I would give you 1000 Dollars if you ever would say a positive thing about Gimeno. I guess I can keep my money...
Segoo was second in weak years, my friend.
Trabert beat Segoo in a head to head tour, proving who was the better.
Trabert: 4 Roland Garoos titles Segoo: 0 Roland Garros titles.
You can trust me on this, don't worry about that.
Emerson vs. Gimeno?
No comparison. Close doesn't do it in tennis, only in horseshoes.
Runnerups? Give me a break.
kiki, Stolle called himself "The Old Hacker".
Yes, we don't have the same concept. I just wonder what your concept is.
I don't overrate Gimeno.
I don't overrate Segura.
I don't belittle Newcombe.
I don't belittle Stolle.
You underrate and belittle Rosewall :"10 big titles" even though you exactly know that Rosewall is by far the most successful with 25 big titles against 2 of Stolle,f.i.,
against 19 of your first darling, against 8 of your second darling etc...
You belittle Vines and Nüsslein!
You call Muscles mean. That's mean!
Your "expertise" is a shame!
Really?
Gimeno won how many majors? Less than one? Oh, the victory over Proissy.
Segura at least had good years in the early fifties, but in the tough years of the late fifties, he ranked about 6 or 7.
Newcombe won the biggest titles in the 1970 to 1975 era, based on competition.
He beat Connors in two majors (Rosewall also played Connors in two majors!), Smith in three (including the Davis Cup, certainly a major event), Kodes in one major final, Rosewall in three majors (1970 Wimbledon, 1971 Wimbledon (the worst shellacking of Rosewall's career), 1973 Forest Hills), Emerson (1970 Wimbledon marathon, 11-9 in the fifth).
When Newk was on his game, the best player of the early seventies.
That says a lot about Stolle and his real level.
I just laugh at the idea that you ever met Rosewall...you are the only one that does not know that EVERYBODY called him pockets, those who know him ( and I am sure you just don´t).
I have different darlings, yes, but Laver is my first darling and the others are more spendable...
I never belittled Vines, I just don´t buy some stuff.
I have seen Gimeno like 12 or 15 times LIVE...How many have you?
How many times have you seen Laver? Roche? Newcombe? Nastase? Kodes? Hoad? Gimeno? Santana? Emerson? Stolle?...Rosewall?? be honest with yourself.I don´t care if you are with me Mr " expert"
Bobbyone has certainly read a lot about tennis of the 60´s and 70´s.I doubt he has really seen one single match of that era.
kiki, You might have seen more old players than I have but thus the more your verdicts are very strange.
It's a severy insult that you write I don't know Muscles. You seem to be a second Limpinhitter...
Botht eammates.Rosewall had the right game to counter Stolle.
BTW, Have you ever seen Stolle and Rosewall live? or you just read about them in a Marvel comic?
I just laugh at the idea that you ever met Rosewall...you are the only one that does not know that EVERYBODY called him pockets, those who know him ( and I am sure you just don´t).
I have different darlings, yes, but Laver is my first darling and the others are more spendable...
I never belittled Vines, I just don´t buy some stuff.
I have seen Gimeno like 12 or 15 times LIVE...How many have you?
How many times have you seen Laver? Roche? Newcombe? Nastase? Kodes? Hoad? Gimeno? Santana? Emerson? Stolle?...Rosewall?? be honest with yourself.I don´t care if you are with me Mr " expert"